Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Yes, the key to this argument/discussion is whether your site offers a service to the general public. As suggested earlier we cant expect someone hosting his/her home page on Geocities to follow web standards, but anyone offering services online bears a moral responsibility to make those services

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

I was being specific and not defining the situation well, my bad. In the UK it is against the law to provide an inaccessible service. Therefore ONLY in the field of Accessibility, it is within the rights of any disabled person to demand that any UK site should be accessible. In practice, it

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

I made the comparison to the construction industry because:   1. we are both in the business of building things   and   2. the standards used benefit the end user.   A 'brickie' lays bricks in one of a number of standard methods using standard materials. The benefit of this is that the house sho

RE: [WSG] talking points for standards

Stephen Stagg: > A better way to force the implementation of Accessibility > standards would be to set up a group, or just urge disabled > people, to sue companies and web hosts who serve inaccessible > sites. Once people and customers realize that getting it > wrong will cost them, I'm sure th

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

IMO the way forward is not to let others fight your fights (disabled vs bad site owners) but to pick up the glove and fight back yourself... together with others. I think Lea's idea about a badge is not bad. I came to think of the "Dogme Manifesto" (wonder why) and maybe something in that dir

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Christian Montoya wrote: On 12/6/05, Stephen Stagg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A better way to force the implementation of Accessibility standards would be to set up a group, or just urge disabled people, to sue companies and web hosts who serve inaccessible sites. Once people and customers r

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

On 12/6/05, Stephen Stagg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A better way to force the implementation of Accessibility standards > would be to set up a group, or just urge disabled people, to sue > companies and web hosts who serve inaccessible sites. Once people and > customers realize that getting it

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Peter Williams wrote: From: Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] have you ever seen a house with a huge sign on it: "This house is standards compliant"? No, but washing machines, fridges and cars are all now displaying stickers that advise of their efficiency in terms of an industry and go

RE: [WSG] talking points for standards

> From: Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] > > have you ever seen a house with a huge sign on it: "This > house is standards compliant"? No, but washing machines, fridges and cars are all now displaying stickers that advise of their efficiency in terms of an industry and government agreed star r

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Robert O'Neill wrote: If I wanted new windows in my house I'd buy from the BS Standard compliant company every time, wouldn't you ? Well I dunno? I am in Canada and I am assuming this might be the same as the Canadian Standards Association (CSA). In North America BS stands for Bul

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Donna Jones wrote: ...but, yes, back to my "problem child" non-profit. It may be time to let it go, it is hard to see them get a poor website and pay a fair amount of money for it ... it is also hard to validate myself and get them to know that i do know what i'm doing, at least tons more tha

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

The other problem with the validation logos is that they don't always mean that the page is valid. In my experience, a large number of sites with these logos don't serve valid code and fail the test that they link to. I think that this analog with the construction world is not really satisfa

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

If I wanted new windows in my house I'd buy from the BS Standard compliant company every time, wouldn't you ?   The thing is though, if I click on the BS Standard logo it can't prove to me that the company is actually compliant , however in our industry, we as web designers can use our W3C logos

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

I thought of a number of points relating to this standards issue... The icons by w3c and others are meaningless and are a problem. They need to have meaning to the reader. The average web visitor doesn't even know that the W3C exists, let alone that they make recommendations or determine struc

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Terrence Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Donna Jones said: A non-profit that i've maintained the website for for 8 years or so has recently...hired a PR firm. Why do the PR firm think they should maintain the site and not you? Have they put forward any compelling reasons why they are better

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

On 06/12/2005, at 5:32 PM, Donna Jones wrote: Thanks again for your kind note and understanding. and, very timely, Roger Johansson at 456 Berea st has covered the same topic today - Ten reasons to learn and use web standards [http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200512/ ten_reasons_to_lear

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

You are absolutely correct Andreas. Bit the same as an Australian Safety Standard, or Certificate of Electrical Compliance and the myriad of other bits of pieces of terminology and standards that we live with every day. But if we don't educate the public, how will they ever learn. The tag so

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Now that is a pearl Mark! Is it copyrightLOL. Regards, Ric Mark Harris wrote: You can lead a client to knowledge, but you can't make them think! ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup

RE: [WSG] talking points for standards

> Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > But if that comparison is inaccurate or outright misleading ... > ... > I'm not sure if getting a contract because of FUD is the right way to go. Which is why careful licence must be applied to the analogies used. Explaining something in terms that the listener can rela

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Alex James wrote: That would be a better discussion - why with so much evidence to the contrary, can the list not convince Donna to fight the PR agency? I don't actually think it's a fight she wants to have or necessarily should undertake. Donna didn't ask us to bolster her up; she asked u

RE: [WSG] talking points for standards

Bob wrote: >I've noticed that responses to your similar "dilemma" have been quite exhaustive.   Bob,   It may of helped you but I'm doubtful it has convinced Donna?    That would be a better discussion - why with so much evidence to the contrary, can the list not convince Donna to fight the

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Hi Andreas, None of the general public cares about whether our sites are AAA compliant, whether they follow any standards or guidelines or not. What they want is a site that works. True and so they should have. If you buy a washing machine and it tells you "This washing machine follows th

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Donna,in another thread, someone essentially asked "why code like this", in trying to convince a friend.  I don't think he's getting very good answers but at any rate, it made me think of a "problem" I'm having and I've decided to make a new thread. I've noticed that responses to your similar "dile

RE: [WSG] talking points for standards

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Montoya > Sent: Tuesday, 6 December 2005 3:40 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] talking points for standards > > On 12/5/05, Ric & Jude Raft

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Donna, If I was in your situation, I would write a letter to the director of the organisation, outlining several things. Firstly point out how much time and effort you have put into the organsiation over the years, and how passionate you feel about whatever their cause is, and how proud you have be

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Scott Swabey - Lafinboy Productions wrote: The building codes analogy is one I often use myself, but as pointed out already, it does fall flat when asked for the governing bodies that are policing the web. When faced with a client/agency/designer that doesn't (want to/need to) understand the 'te

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Peter J. Farrell wrote: Donna Jones wrote: ... I'm afraid the budget is eaten up by the PR firm and so the NP is "feeling badly" that I'm in the position, once again, of donating a lot of my time. Ideally, in their view, i think, they'd like for me to say, "yes, the PR's code is great and g

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

On 06/12/2005, at 4:48 PM, Peter J. Farrell wrote: In the end, I felt very used as a volunteer. I recommend that anybody who volunteers for a non-profit, discuss ownership of code/ designs when you volunteer. I was happy that I was able put a co- copyright on the website and in files. If pr

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Donna Jones wrote: ... I'm afraid the budget is eaten up by the PR firm and so the NP is "feeling badly" that I'm in the position, once again, of donating a lot of my time. Ideally, in their view, i think, they'd like for me to say, "yes, the PR's code is great and groovy and I'll continue m

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Terrence and all: thank you for all your replies. Lea said she thought "accessibility" was my strongest suit and I agree with that. At least "font-size increase" is something that can be seen on the surface, and perhaps other accessibility issues that I haven't thought about. I did think to

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

On 12/5/05, Ric & Jude Raftis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The question is, how many designers include icons and links on their > sites back to W3C for XHTML and CSS? How many include an icon for > Accessibility? Personally, I don't have all my sites Triple A > compliant, but they do pass automat

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

I've only recently joined this group and I find this an interesting discussion because it is a daily challenge for designers who are desperately trying to do the right thing. I'm sure we would all love to see the back of the cowboys in the industry who throw a Frontpage site together with no d

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Do you really want those customers who want to maintain their pages in Frontage only to load up your design with unoptimized images, tables and tag sludge? You put this site in your portfolio and a prospect goes to visit your butchered site. These clients are also the worst for taking up too mu

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Donna Jones said: > A non-profit that i've maintained the website for for 8 years or so has > recently...hired a PR firm. Why do the PR firm think they should maintain the site and not you? Have they put forward any compelling reasons why they are better qualified to look after a web site? Get th

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

G'day Dollars and cents is the language that will convince most, if not all, sceptics. The problem I face in that regard is that a lot of sales enquiries I get are from people who want to maintain their own site, for next to nothing. They don't want to spend money on a content management s

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

On 06/12/2005, at 12:46 PM, Joshua Street wrote: We can get upset about how they're locking out users with PDAs and mobile devices and hence potential customers, but that remains a DECISION made by someone, for whatever reason. Not neccessarily an informed and intelligent decision, but one noneth

RE: [WSG] talking points for standards

The building codes analogy is one I often use myself, but as pointed out already, it does fall flat when asked for the governing bodies that are policing the web. When faced with a client/agency/designer that doesn't (want to/need to) understand the 'technical' aspects (bandwidth, ease of maintena

RE: [WSG] talking points for standards

Web standards So assuming you want to make a case to a client Strategy 1 Yes, accessibility, W3C, design for the future, screen readers, more elegant code, blah blah blah Try this and you will be sounding like the teacher in the Charlie Brown cartoons I feel Strategy 2 Do you want to save 20% o

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

The web is intrinsically anarchous to some extent, occasioned in no small part by individual publishers not beholden to any particular standard (or even aware of them) -- Geocities users have no incentive to make their site accessed by a few friends 'standards compliant' if that increases the amoun

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote: That's the point. That's why they want to have someone build a site for them that has a clue about this stuff. The day WILL come when there is a governing body over the net. There WAS a day when housing codes DID NOT exist and were being w

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote: That's the point. That's why they want to have someone build a site for them that has a clue about this stuff. The day WILL come when there is a governing body over the net. There WAS a day when housing codes DID NOT exist and were being worked on and accepted.

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

The analogy is quite simple... If there weren't codes to set guidelines for best practices when constructing homes, what kind of homes would most people have? People have been building sites for years now and have no idea that guidelines even exist, let alone take steps to meet them and be "u

RE: [WSG] talking points for standards

Additionally to the points already mentioned by others, one very good reason for coding in standards is to ensure the website will last a long time. I am sure the organisation you are talking about will not want to create a new website in a few years time. Show them some of the many websites that

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Hi They are a PR firm, so they will respond to $$ arguments. I suggest you build two compliant pages, of exactly the same html code and re-present them differently using CSS (like floats, PDA style. Show this to them, flick between the two explaining how both sites can use the same backend and cod

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote: You CAN launch a site without passing code, but there are groups that are working together to enforce the integrity of the code. And which groups would those be? And what authority do they have over the site? Here's where the analogy may well fall apart, rather tha

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

On 06/12/2005, at 1:01 AM, Donna Jones wrote: I need to be able to explain, by looking at the surface, the difference between standards coding versus "you-know-what". Another point: standards based markup is lighter - their overall bandwidth will be lower, meaning they can buy the cheaper ho

RE: [WSG] talking points for standards

The processes of building a site with standards cool. Best practices that cover every stage from planning to customer sign off that can be found on this lists posts and moderators/members sites. For me it makes job turnaround smoother and quicker.

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

G'day Donna, The continuing fight against the incompetent and uncaring! Would they allow their children to play with toys that didn't meet Australian Safety Standards (or whatever country you're in)? Then why have a site that doesn't meet world standards for web design? Regards, Ric Donn

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Some articles:

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

> adam reitsma wrote: > > - If there's a change to your site that you could forsee (for > > instance, color scheme change, slight layout change, etc), outline the > > time (=money) savings in changing your code, vs theirs. I think this is the top point. Sure, the tag soup option may look good now,

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

In my own experience, I find myself using the house analogy again and again when it comes to websites and getting points across to clients. There's a code for what is considered a good building. You cannot gain a certificate of occupancy with passing code. You CAN launch a site without passi

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

I'm going to have to name drop my article again here :) http://www.geminidevelopment.com.au/html/article_whycomplient.php Samuel adam reitsma wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Donna, > That's why I mention th

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Donna,This is where you really need to be thinking in terms of what the customer wants.So it's the hippest, coolest, latest code - so what? They really don't care - and shouldn't care.Come up with points that assist them - as Kim was saying, show where your 'methods' (and you don't really need much

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Donna, > That's why I mention the "measure" thingy and industrial standards. I > get the feeling that's something companies appreciate from a business > point of view. Several of my coworkers and I recently gave a talk on when we chose to use Web standards (and when we didn't). We created a hand

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Hi Donna, That's why I mention the "measure" thingy and industrial standards. I get the feeling that's something companies appreciate from a business point of view. Kim, I've tried that (they have no idea what the W3C is or validators or why it matters and don't want to learn) and it doesn't

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

Kim Kruse wrote: I tell my clients that the only way you can "measure" if your website (code wise) is any good is by using the industrial standards set by the W3 and the validators. This also means that if you can't maintain the site anymore any semi skilled coder should be able to take over.

Re: [WSG] talking points for standards

I tell my clients that the only way you can "measure" if your website (code wise) is any good is by using the industrial standards set by the W3 and the validators. This also means that if you can't maintain the site anymore any semi skilled coder should be able to take over. Not very likely wi